Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.

"teachrmama" wrote in

I'd like to know what the "KB" in FamilyKB stands for.

KiloBucks?
==
Is that the same as drug money?

Actually, I was thinking of "kilo" on terms of 1000. You know, metric
system.

You guys are way behind the times, Kilo Dollars are not hip anymore!

Be more like the government and spend trillions we don't have.

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/200...-2-4-trillion/

Notice nobody want to give any money to help out the children?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"DB" wrote in message
et...
Why should it not go by how much a person makes? If the child support
is
set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.

So if a person brings home $4000 per month, $2000 should be spent on food
and clothing for the child?

Apparently so. And if they bring home a million dollars a month, then they
should spend 380 thousand on the child. Anything less would make them a
deadbeat causing the child to be neglected..........

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a7c21018b1f2@uwe...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
I didn't say that, I was just pointing out that it is not true for all
of
them.

Well of course. The numbers are averages. But your original comment
was
"parents spend more than 50% of their incomes on children." The average
parents spend far less than the amount you claimed. And the CS
guidelines
are based on what average parents spend on children, not some inflated
amount spent by an exception to the rule.

The issue that gets discussed here over and over is the CP mothers claim
the
NCP fathers are ordered to pay CS. The mothers rarely acknowledge they
are
also ordered to provide their pro-rata share of the total CS obligation
established by the courts. And not wanting to get pinned down to how
much
they actually spend on their children causes CP mothers to regularly
object
to having to account for what they really spend.

Actually, my statement was "I think parents spend more than 50% of what
they
make on their children." Never did I state that they did.

I believe I quoted you with the correct context for your comment. I did
leave out the "I think" part and the word "their" but other than that I
used
your exact statement. The way I quoted you did not change the thrust of
what you said.

Indeed. She quotes what she said, and then denies saying what she quoted.
English MUST not be her primary language.



What are the numbers? Are we talking about an executive or something
along
those lines where income is over 50K a year, or a person who works at
McDonalds earning min wage?

I'm going to assume you really do want a serious discussion of how CS
guidleines are determined. The percentages I cited for child-rearing
expenditures are the averages for all incomes. The research behind the
averages has a lot more detail. The CS guideline scales are developed
using
the underlying data that shows lower income earners spend below but close
to
the averages and higher income earners spend less than the averages. The
logic behind those assumptions is as incomes increase all families -
intact,
separated, divorced, never-married - have increasing discretionary income
that they don't spend it on children and use the money for investments,
savings, and adult-oriented expenditures. Those adjustments are why the
CS
guidelines show a one child CS award is around 13-14% of gross for a lower
income earner and more like 11% of gross for a high income earner.

One of the giant flaws in the CS guidelines is the same tax status
assumptions are used for all earners. As you know lower income earners
pay
little or no taxes, and may in some cases get tax credit refunds, while
higher income earners pay the vast majority of taxes actually paid. The
broad-brushed approach to CS awards, and all of it's flaws, is what gets
discussed here in a-c-s.

........... beginning with their claim that unwed fathers are incapable of
raising a child.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a7c21018b1f2@uwe...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
I didn't say that, I was just pointing out that it is not true for all
of
them.

Well of course. The numbers are averages. But your original comment
was
"parents spend more than 50% of their incomes on children." The average
parents spend far less than the amount you claimed. And the CS
guidelines
are based on what average parents spend on children, not some inflated
amount spent by an exception to the rule.

The issue that gets discussed here over and over is the CP mothers claim
the
NCP fathers are ordered to pay CS. The mothers rarely acknowledge they
are
also ordered to provide their pro-rata share of the total CS obligation
established by the courts. And not wanting to get pinned down to how
much
they actually spend on their children causes CP mothers to regularly
object
to having to account for what they really spend.

Actually, my statement was "I think parents spend more than 50% of what
they
make on their children." Never did I state that they did.

I believe I quoted you with the correct context for your comment. I did
leave out the "I think" part and the word "their" but other than that I
used
your exact statement. The way I quoted you did not change the thrust of
what you said.

What are the numbers? Are we talking about an executive or something
along
those lines where income is over 50K a year, or a person who works at
McDonalds earning min wage?

I'm going to assume you really do want a serious discussion of how CS
guidleines are determined. The percentages I cited for child-rearing
expenditures are the averages for all incomes. The research behind the
averages has a lot more detail. The CS guideline scales are developed
using
the underlying data that shows lower income earners spend below but close
to
the averages and higher income earners spend less than the averages. The
logic behind those assumptions is as incomes increase all families -
intact,
separated, divorced, never-married - have increasing discretionary income
that they don't spend it on children and use the money for investments,
savings, and adult-oriented expenditures. Those adjustments are why the
CS
guidelines show a one child CS award is around 13-14% of gross for a lower
income earner and more like 11% of gross for a high income earner.

One of the giant flaws in the CS guidelines is the same tax status
assumptions are used for all earners. As you know lower income earners
pay
little or no taxes, and may in some cases get tax credit refunds, while
higher income earners pay the vast majority of taxes actually paid. The
broad-brushed approach to CS awards, and all of it's flaws, is what gets
discussed here in a-c-s.

........... beginning with their claim that unwed fathers are incapable of
raising a child.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a7c21018b1f2@uwe...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
I didn't say that, I was just pointing out that it is not true for all
of
them.

Well of course. The numbers are averages. But your original comment
was
"parents spend more than 50% of their incomes on children." The average
parents spend far less than the amount you claimed. And the CS
guidelines
are based on what average parents spend on children, not some inflated
amount spent by an exception to the rule.

The issue that gets discussed here over and over is the CP mothers claim
the
NCP fathers are ordered to pay CS. The mothers rarely acknowledge they
are
also ordered to provide their pro-rata share of the total CS obligation
established by the courts. And not wanting to get pinned down to how
much
they actually spend on their children causes CP mothers to regularly
object
to having to account for what they really spend.

Actually, my statement was "I think parents spend more than 50% of what
they
make on their children." Never did I state that they did.

I believe I quoted you with the correct context for your comment. I did
leave out the "I think" part and the word "their" but other than that I
used
your exact statement. The way I quoted you did not change the thrust of
what you said.

What are the numbers? Are we talking about an executive or something
along
those lines where income is over 50K a year, or a person who works at
McDonalds earning min wage?

I'm going to assume you really do want a serious discussion of how CS
guidleines are determined. The percentages I cited for child-rearing
expenditures are the averages for all incomes. The research behind the
averages has a lot more detail. The CS guideline scales are developed
using
the underlying data that shows lower income earners spend below but close
to
the averages and higher income earners spend less than the averages. The
logic behind those assumptions is as incomes increase all families -
intact,
separated, divorced, never-married - have increasing discretionary income
that they don't spend it on children and use the money for investments,
savings, and adult-oriented expenditures. Those adjustments are why the
CS
guidelines show a one child CS award is around 13-14% of gross for a lower
income earner and more like 11% of gross for a high income earner.

One of the giant flaws in the CS guidelines is the same tax status
assumptions are used for all earners. As you know lower income earners
pay
little or no taxes, and may in some cases get tax credit refunds, while
higher income earners pay the vast majority of taxes actually paid. The
broad-brushed approach to CS awards, and all of it's flaws, is what gets
discussed here in a-c-s.

........... beginning with their claim that unwed fathers are incapable of
raising a child.

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a6f1ec5bb98f@uwe...
DB wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]

My question to you is why are you against child support?

Who said I was against child support?

I don't believe in the large amounts of Child support that the government
demands people to pay!
There needs to be a dollar amount ceiling on actual cost.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each
week?

I do agree that there should be a limit as to how much a person is
expected
to pay. It should go by how much money they make.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each
week?

I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.


You think "poorly"
On average 35-40% go to taxes, then housing, transportation Kids are way
down the list

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

"animal02" wrote in

You think "poorly"
On average 35-40% go to taxes, then housing, transportation Kids are way
down the list


Lets just say Dad is bringing home $3000 a month with one child in the home
and a wife to support.

$1500 for mortgage + land tax.
$200 for car payment
$100 for car insurance
$200 for gas
$600 for groceries

Does the balance get spent on the child?

Is the government out of touch with daily reality?

Mother, grandmother on trial for not getting help for burned toddler


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...y.31f8a63.html

12:18 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 24, 2007

By JENNIFER EMILY / The Dallas Morning News


How 20-month-old Jah'tavian Taylor got scalding bathwater over a fourth
of his body last year isn't the issue in a child abuse trial going on
this week in a Dallas County courtroom.


But what his mother and grandmother did about the toddler's second- and
third-degree burns is.

Consuela Polk, 22, and Mae Edwards, 39, are charged with causing serious
bodily injury because prosecutors say they did not seek medical
treatment for the three weeks between when Jah'tavian was burned and his
August 2006 death.

Instead, the women used an ointment prescribed when another child burned
a hand. Jah'tavian died because of the infection in his burns,
prosecutors said.

"They applied some sort of ointment, and that's all they were doing,"
prosecutor Reynie Tinajero told jurors Tuesday in opening statements.
Mae Edwards
Mae Edwards

But the women's attorneys, Ray Jackson, John Read and Vernon Johnson,
said the women thought they were doing the right thing by applying the
ointment and petroleum jelly, and cleaning him with Ivory soap.

Mr. Johnson told jurors that prosecutors must prove to them "that these
burns were so serious they could have not been treated at home."

The women could face up to life in prison if convicted.

Jah'tavian's family called 911 when they said he would not wake up from
a nap. He was probably dead when paramedics arrived, but they still
tried to revive him because of his age, a paramedic and a firefighter
testified Tuesday.

In photos of Jah'tavian's injuries taken after he died, the boy's legs
were bright red from burns, and his hands were burned as well.

In their statements to police, Ms. Edwards and Ms. Polk said they did
not take the child to the doctor because they were afraid of Child
Protective Services, the state agency that investigates child abuse.

"I was told CPS would take my child and I would also get put in jail,"
Ms. Polk said in her statement. "I had been told this by friends and
family members."

Mr. Johnson told jurors that fear of CPS is common where the family
lived in Far East Dallas.

"Of course they were scared of CPS," he said. "In their part of town,
probably everyone is scared of CPS."

In Ms. Edwards' written statement to police, she said her 4-year-old
granddaughter caused the burns but "I lied and told people that I did it
because I did not want her to be scarred for life." She also said
Jah'tavian had a knot on his head from hitting the floor.

In an interview with police, the girl admitted to turning on the hot
water, according to testimony.

Ms. Polk said in her written statement to police that the day Jah'tavian
was burned, he had a dirty diaper and began smearing feces on the wall.
Ms. Polk's mother, Ms. Edwards, put Jah'tavian in the bathtub while Ms.
Polk went to get cleaning supplies.

Then, according to Ms. Polk's police statement, another child began
crying and Ms. Edwards went to check on that child. Ms. Edwards then
heard water running. Jah'tavian's sister had turned on the water. Ms.
Edwards ran into the bathroom, shut off the water and ran cool water
over Jah'tavian.

They treated the burns with the prescription ointment. Ms. Polk also
told police that she talked to a pharmacist who gave her a spray for
itching and told her to put petroleum jelly on the burns.

Dallas police Detective Arleen Martinez testified that she could not
find the employee Ms. Polk said she spoke with. But she said she did not
talk to every employee.



CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.


CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION

Cut your tubes ladies!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1879

DB wrote:
"animal02" wrote in

You think "poorly"
On average 35-40% go to taxes, then housing, transportation Kids are way
down the list


Lets just say Dad is bringing home $3000 a month with one child in the home
and a wife to support.

$1500 for mortgage + land tax.
$200 for car payment
$100 for car insurance
$200 for gas
$600 for groceries


$600 for two adults and a child? that's crazy talk!

Does the balance get spent on the child?

Is the government out of touch with daily reality?


um, yes. just notice?

--

Sarah Gray